Whenever Any Form of Government Becomes Destructive To These Ends,
It Is The Right of the People to Alter Or To Abolish It,
And To Institute New Government

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The Pathology of Evil in Politics

From the American Thinker:

Do purely evil individuals exist who can hide their true nature from the rest of the world? And are these individuals drawn into politics as a conduit for dominating an unsuspecting and acquiescent populace?

There is a theory that evil is a pathological disorder. The observation that psychopaths, including sociopaths and narcissists, all exhibit chronically evil behavior makes a persuasive argument for that theory. In Andrew M. Lobaczewski's book, Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes,the case is made for equating evil and psychosis in the political arena:

The actions of [pathocracy] affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every town, business, and institution. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country creating a "new class" within that nation. This privileged class feels permanently threatened by the "others", i.e. by the majority of normal people.

Lobaczewski also references the following passage from The Sociopath Next Door,by clinical psychologist Dr. Martha Stout:

Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.

You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.

Dr. Stout estimates that this psychosis affects approximately 4% of the population. It seems obvious that many of these will gravitate to politics, where power over others is most attainable. Lobaczewski places the amount of undiagnosed psychopaths who join the pathocracy at 6%:

Approximately 6% of the population constitute the active structure of the pathocracy, which carries its own peculiar consciousness of its own goals. Twice as many people constitute a second group: those who have managed to warp their personalities to meet the demands of the new reality. ...

This second group consists of individuals who are, on the average, weaker, more sickly, and less vital. The frequency of known mental diseases in this group is at twice the rate of the national average. We can thus assume that the genesis of their submissive attitude toward the regime, their greater susceptibility to pathological effects, and their skittish opportunism includes various relatively impalpable anomalies. ...

The 6% group constitute the new nobility; the 12% group forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most advantageous. ... Only 18% of the country's population is thus in favor of the new system of government.

The question is, how do we recognize and ferret out the sociopaths and narcissists currently in power in both political parties? This is an inherently difficult task due to the ability of these psychopaths to disguise their disease. I believe it is possible to isolate them through critically observing and identifying the inconsistencies between their apparent irrational behavior and the image they are trying to present.

For instance, what are we to make of a president who suddenly bursts out laughing while being interviewed on the potential for economic depression in the U.S.? How about a jovial president giving a friendly "shout-out" to a colleague before delivering a listless homily on the brutal murder of thirteen American soldiers by a ruthless domestic Islamist terrorist? Perhaps the picture of Obama striding down the White House steps while his "friend" Professor Gates is helped by Officer Crowley is an indicator of his true personality.

Dubai Defaulting on Islamic Bonds? GE Goes Where Fools Dare to Tread

They have been saying how wonderful this Islamic finance has been doing. More taqiya. I am glad. Anything to discourage financing the spread of Islam. Bloomberg markets are down big -- but if that's what it takes ............... (hat tip Anthony)

A DEFAULT by Dubai will put the world of Islamic finance to the test at a time when hard questions are being asked by bankers and lawyers about the protection afforded by financial instruments that are Shariah compliant.

The bond that lies at the heart of the threat of default and financial ignominy for Dubai is a sukuk, an instrument invented by bankers and Islamic scholars to comply with a Shariah (Islamic law) prohibition against the payment of interest on money.

Islamic finance has five pillars: a ban on interest, a ban on speculation, a ban on haram (forbidden) investments, such as pork or gambling, the requirement of partnership or sharing of profit and loss and the requirement of asset backing. Getting round the ban on interest is the problem and opportunity of Islamic finance.

A bond that doesn't (in theory) pay interest sounds unattractive but in the Gulf and Malaysia, Islamic finance has flourished over the past decade.

Typically, interest is expressed as a share in a profit, such as the rent paid for use of a property or asset. According to estimates by HSBC Amanah, the Islamic arm of the British bank, outstanding Islamic finance debt is worth $US822 billion ($902 billion).

Even Western investors have been persuaded to dip their toes in the exotic financial tool, tempted by the deep pool of petrodollars available in the Gulf. Only days before Dubai revealed its bombshell - a threat of possible default on Nakheel's $US4 billion sukuk - GE Capital, the American financial services group, issued the first sukuk by a Western company, raising $US500 million. The underpinning of a sukuk with assets makes it attractive for use in property lending or asset leasing. The sukuk issued by GE this week was a loan for aircraft leasing.

GE's decision to use the Islamic finance market for funds reflected renewed confidence in a market that had almost collapsed after expansion in 2007 when the Gulf was awash with money fuelled by high oil prices.

Demand shrivelled after the collapse of Lehman Brothers with only $US16 billion issued last year. More importantly, fears surfaced that sukuk failed to provide the same legal protection as conventional bonds. To date, the legal structure of sukuk has never been tested in a court.

Peggy Noonan says that the Democratic establishment is finally becoming alarmed at the strange priorities and ineptitude of the Obama administration:

From journalist Elizabeth Drew, a veteran and often sympathetic chronicler of Democratic figures, a fiery denunciation of — and warning for — the White House. In a piece in Politico on the firing of White House counsel Greg Craig, Ms. Drew reports that while the president was in Asia last week, “a critical mass of influential people who once held big hopes for his presidency began to wonder whether they had misjudged the man.”

They once held “an unromantically high opinion of Obama,” and were key to his rise, but now they are concluding that the president isn’t “the person of integrity and even classiness they had thought.”

Just as stinging as Elizabeth Drew on domestic matters was Leslie Gelb on Mr. Obama and foreign policy in the Daily Beast. Mr. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and fully plugged into the Democratic foreign-policy establishment, wrote this week that the president’s Asia trip suggested “a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power.” The president’s Afghanistan review has been “inexcusably clumsy,” Mideast negotiations have been “fumbling.” So unsuccessful was the trip that Mr. Gelb suggested Mr. Obama take responsibility for it “as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs.”

He added that rather than bowing to emperors — Mr. Obama “seems to do this stuff spontaneously and inexplicably” — he should begin to bow to “the voices of experience” in Washington…

The Obama bowing pictures are becoming iconic…because they express a growing political perception, and that is that there is something amateurish about this presidency, something too ad hoc and highly personalized about it, something…incompetent…You can get tagged, typed and pegged your first year. Gerald Ford did, and Ronald Reagan too, more happily. The first year is when indelible impressions are made and iconic photos emerge.

The Convergence of Global Warming and Healthcare

On this Thanksgiving Day, let us give thanks that the two greatest all-purpose pretexts for government regulation of every single aspect of your life - "health care" and "the environment" - have now converged. Forget the global warming, global cooling, all the phoney-baloney tree-ring stuff - who can keep track of all that "settled science"? And fortunately we no longer need it, because we have a new rationale for the massive multitrillion-dollar Copenhagen shakendownen. Drumroll, please!

But slashing carbon dioxide emissions also could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, according to studies published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet.

Government regulation of health care justifies government regulation of the environment: Ingenious!

A great post from John Nolte at Big Hollywood (click on the title above to read the whole thing):

Yesterday, Washington Post columnist and former Bush II speechwriter Michael Gerson played a long slow violin solo over the death of the mainstream media. There’s nothing new in his piece. Dazed with panic as the circle of financial ruin closes in, we’ve heard this song many times before from our ink-stained dinosaurs. And true to form, Gerson can’t break the mold. It’s all there, the rose-colored glasses, denial, and a heaping helping of rationalization.

Once again, from that familiar MSM perch where one can look down their nose at the great unwashed who just don’t understand the magnificent tradition of journalism they’re about to lose, Gerson blames We the People for no longer wanting to pay for our news and choosing partisan sources “that reinforce and exaggerate … political predispositions.”

How absurd.

A non-partisan, unbiased news media simply doesn’t exist anymore. All that remains of this once somewhat respectable profession are two kinds of media: those who lie about their agenda and those who don’t – and Mr. Gerson’s employer is one of the liars. Whether it’s Glenn Beck, Arianna Huffington, National Review or MSNBC, tell me your biases upfront and we can at least start a dialogue from an honest foundation. On the other hand, the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, Time, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and the like, have spent years making jerks out of us – lying to our faces. We knew this, there just wasn’t any alternative. But now that there is, their time is just about up.

Gerson doesn’t seem to want to face this truth – I don’t mean the truth that Big Media’s dying, that’s undeniable — but the truth that the death of this profession was a suicide. Does Gerson’s waxing of the nostalgic here sound like the MSM we’ve all grown to know and loathe:

I don’t believe that journalistic objectivity is a fraud. I was a journalist for a time, at a once-great, now-diminished newsmagazine. I’ve seen good men and women work according to a set of professional standards I respect — standards that serve the public. Professional journalism is not like the buggy-whip industry, outdated by economic progress, to be mourned but not missed. This profession has a social value that is currently not reflected in its market value.

What profession could he possibly be talking about? Certainly not the same profession who set out to destroy Clarence Thomas, circled the wagons to save President Clinton, summoned all their resources to lose the war in Iraq, told us more about the background of an unemployed plumber than our current President, dragged Sarah Palin’s family through the mud, and on this very day refuse to investigate three of the biggest stories of the year (if not the decade): ACORN, CzarGate and ClimateGate.

Obama arrived on the base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time) and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cellphones to snap pictures.

On December 18, 2007, then presidential candidate Barack Obama leveled the first of dozens of heavy criticisms against President George W. Bush. In a speech in Des Moines, Obama blasted President Bush for taking his “eye off the ball in Afghanistan." He continued: "It’s time to…increase our military, political, and economic commitment to Afghanistan. That’s what…I’ll do as president.”

This was Barack Obama’s first “eye off the ball” speech. It was the beginning of a barrage of campaign speeches accusing the Bush administration of “taking our eye off of Osama bin Laden” (Denver, 1/30/08).

On July 15, 2008 in Washington, D.C., then Senator Obama vowed to deploy “the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11." In fact, Barack Obama specifically used the name of Osama bin Laden at least 40 times in speeches during his Presidential campaign while definitively pledging to focus all necessary resources against bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in the countries where they live and operate.

On November 3, 2008, the day before his election, Obama delivered for the last time as a candidate his oft repeated promise, “I will finally finish the fight against bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. I will never hesitate to defend this nation.”

More than a year has passed since Obama was elected. Since that date, we have seen a distinct contrast between candidate Obama and Commander-in-Chief Obama. Candidate Obama seldom failed to rail against the war in Iraq - the “war of choice” - and seldom failed to burnish his national security credentials by railing against bin Laden. As he said repeatedly before his election, “I have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban. I will never hesitate to defend this nation!”

President Obama has now hesitated for a full three months since General McChrystal requested more troops in Afghanistan and said failing to do so risked an outcome that “will likely result in failure.” A Commander-in-Chief must be decisive in time of war. The lives of our troops, the destiny of our nation and that of the free world is at stake.

Well before January 20, 2009 when he took the presidential oath of office, Obama swore an oath to defend America at home and abroad. When he became a US Senator, Obama took the Congressional oath which says, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

In every case, campaign rhetoric and national security policy merge the moment we elect a president. In this case, quite specifically, President Obama’s Congressional oath and campaign promises were merged by his taking the oath of office of President.

A President’s oath of office is set by the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” To fulfill that oath, a president must defend our nation against all the enemies of the Constitution. Osama bin Laden is one, beyond any quibble or doubt. And when a president is elected, he becomes accountable for the promises he made.

When he became president, the presidential oath required Obama to recommit to those principles. Thousands of Americans gave him their vote in full faith that Obama would keep faith with them and make good on his solemn vow to defeat bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Today, it has become completely obvious that President Obama has taken his eye off the very ball that he defined as candidate Obama. As President, he has virtually stopped talking about defeating Osama bin Laden.

In the year since elected, during the dozens of speeches and press conferences he has given as president and in dramatic contrast with his own persistent and repetitive warnings about “taking our eye off of Osama bin Laden,” Obama has uttered the name bin Laden only four times. It is even more significant that not once since his election has Obama repeated his oath to “finish the fight against bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorists.”

American fighting forces are by far the best fighting forces the world has ever seen. They alone among the troops of the world defend and advance the cause of liberty for the sake of all who yearn to be free. Defeat, retreat or failure is not a political decision for them.

They have written a blank check to the Commander-in-Chief for a value up to and including their very lives. Our troops know they will one day come home, boots on or boots off. They are not deployed to dither.

Their very nobility requires a decision from the President who said, “This is a war that we have to win.”

The whole email exchange at this link is worth a read. It starts out at the bottom with our illustrious "science czar" John Holdren being CC:'d on the Sulphur Dioxide "plume stacks" cooling scheme that has been floating around, then towards the top morphs into Phil Jones wishing the damn cooling would just quit. Good stuff.

> >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]> >Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18> >To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris> >Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim> >Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009> >> >> > Tim, Chris,> > I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting> > till about 2020. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office> > press release with Doug's paper that said something like -> > half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on> > record, 1998!> > Still a way to go before 2014.> >> > I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying> > where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal> > scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

TRAIN DERAILMENT IN RUSSIA WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK

Bomb caused derailment, Russian officials say

Crews investigate the site of a train derailment near the border of the Novgorod and Tver provinces. The rural area is 250 miles northwest of Moscow and 150 miles southeast of St. Petersburg. (Ivan Sekretarev, Associated Press / November 28, 2009)

UGLOVKA, RUSSIA - Russian officials opened a terrorism investigation Saturday, saying that a homemade bomb planted on the tracks of the high-speed Moscow-to-St. Petersburg route caused a derailment that killed at least 26 people and injured dozens more.

The head of Russia's Federal Security Service, Alexander Borotnikov, was quoted by the Interfax and RIA Novosti news as saying that an improvised explosive device equivalent to 15 pounds (7 kilograms) of TNT had detonated when the train passed over it Friday night about 9:30 p.m. Remains of the device were found at the site of the crash, Borotnikov said.

"Indeed, this was a terrorist attack," Interfax cited Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for federal prosecutors, as saying. He told the ITAR-Tass news agency that the bomb crater on the track was 1.5 meters (5 feet) deep.

The derailment of the upscale train, which was popular with government officials and business executives, would be Russia's deadliest terrorist strike outside the volatile North Caucasus region in years.

Witness accounts appeared to back up reports of a bomb blast.

"It was immensely scary. I think it was an act of terrorism because there was a bang," passenger Vitaly Rafikov told Channel One state television. He said he helped with the rescue, hauling victims from the wreckage and lighting fires for warmth.

Passenger Igor Pechnikov was in the second of the three derailed cars.

"A trembling began, and the carriage jolted violently to the left. I flew through half of the carriage," he said.

Terrorism has been a major concern in Russia since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, as Chechen rebels have clashed with government forces in two wars and Islamist separatists continue to target law enforcement officials.

Note, Chechen Rebels equals Muslims.

Military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer told APTN that Islamist separatists who operate in the North Caucasus and nationalist groups would naturally fall under suspicion.

Across Russia's North Caucasus region, attacks are relatively frequent. In August, a suicide bombing of a police station in Ingushetia's capital killed 25 people and injured 164. A September 2004 attack on a school in the North Ossetian town of Beslan ignited a three-day hostage-taking ordeal in which more than 330 hostages were killed in a botched rescue. In addition, a December 2003 suicide bombing of a train near Chechnya killed 44 people.

But outside the volatile southern region, the last fatal terrorist attacks occurred in August 2004. A suicide car bombing in Moscow that month killed 10 people only days after bombs ripped through two passenger aircraft, killing more than 80 people. Those attacks were blamed on Chechen rebels, as was a February 2004 Moscow subway bombing that killed 40 people.

A 2002 hostage-taking at a Moscow theater ended with the deaths of around 130 people.

Another train derailment in June 2005 left at least 12 injured on a train that had been traveling from Chechnya to Moscow.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.

Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC’s oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a “preliminary examination” into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.

“We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan,” Mr. Ocampo told me. “There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government.” Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, “there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture.”

It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.

Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that “we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned.”

The New American Foreign Policy ..we eschew ANYTHING construable as bullying

Except to our allies, of course ...Caroline Glick:

The day after Netanyahu bowed to US pressure and announced a total freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria for ten months, Yediot Aharonot reported that the Obama administration now wants Israel to release a thousand Fatah terrorists from prison.

The Americans also want Israel to allow US-trained, terror-supporting Fatah paramilitary forces to deploy in areas that are currently under Israeli military control. Moreover, the Americans are demanding that Israel surrender land in the strategically crucial Jordan Valley to Fatah.

And these are just American preconditions for starting negotiations with the Palestinians. According to Yediot, if those talks ever begin, the White House will demand that Israel accept a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza and agree to ethnically cleanse all the areas of Jews.

So far from winning American support or at least causing the White House to ease its bullying, US President Barack Obama sees Netanyahu's decision to implement a militarily irrational, bigoted policy of prohibiting Jews from building in Israel's heartland as a drop in the bucket.

Could White House Party Crashing Couple Have Been Ushered In By Fellow Muslims? Could This Have Been A Dry Run On A Future Attack?

Larwy, of Larwyn's Links, muses about how "diversity" training to a "diverse" Secret Service staff may have been the reason the Salahis were able to get in, even though they were not on the guest list:

Mr. & Mrs. Tareq Salahi successfully crashed the WH State Dinner. Anyone think that Mr. & Mrs. Robert James Smith would have succeeded?

Further, consider Obama's input into WH SECRET SERVICE STAFFING. It is not far fetched to assume that the SECRET SERVICE BOSSES would have bend over backwards to supply a "DIVERSE" S.S. staff for WH protection even if not explicitly demanded by the 'POST RACIAL" O! ADMIN.

Just knowing that DIVERSITY IN EVERYTHING is the goal at the WH, even an experienced Secret Service Agent manning or "womaning" that first line of defense at the entrance, would know that turning away a couple for cause named Sahali would have greater repercussions than turning away a couple named Smith.

I have to wonder about something even more sinister. Could this have been a dry run on a terrorist attack?

Could it be that the Salahis were allowed in by an Secret Service agent who just happened to be manning the door that even, and who just happened to be Muslim?

The Most Corrupt Administration in US History: NY TIMES: Attorney General Holder Says ACORN Can Be Funded by Federal Government

Where are the defenders of our great nation? Where are our checks and balances? Where are the decent men elected to protect us from carpetbaggers like Obama and his criminal gang?

ACORN has been found guilty of voter fraud, illegal voter registration, conspiracy to traffic in child prostitution, human trafficking, and G-d knows what. My taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fund these vile criminals.

And they dump this on a Friday night during the Thanksgiving holiday. Who are these people?

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress enacted a law banning the government from providing funds to the group.

The department’s conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the antipoverty group’s activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it.

Have you heard the one about the pimp, prostitute, politician and the community organizer? Well, thanks to San Diego private investigator Derrick Roach, Californians are not laughing at what is turning into a political nightmare for California Attorney General Jerry Brown and ACORN. On Tuesday, November 24, Attorney General Brown appeared on KABC’s “Peter Tilden Show” after it was revealed that some 20,000 documents had been thrown into a National City dumpster by ACORN employees.

The documents were thrown out in advance of state investigators arriving at the local ACORN office to conduct an investigation resulting from national media attention. ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera was videotaped giving advice to two individuals posing as a pimp and a prostitute regarding underage prostitution and human smuggling. Without admitting any wrongdoing ACORN terminated Mr. Vera, or so they said. Documents provided to BigGovernment.com show that Mr. Vera was not terminated but was simply laid off, implying that Mr. Vera is also eligible for rehire. (The document also notes that Mr. Vera was laid off due to “restructuring” related to “videotaping incident.)

Other documents provided to BigGovernment.com show that in the wake of the national scandal involving underage prostitution and human smuggling, ACORN employees were communicating with media, law enforcement and internally among ACORN offices as to how to develop a storyline that could explain the undercover videos taken of Mr. Vera. One of those documents with San Diego television station 10News is shown below:

As a result of the undercover videos surfacing and the national media attention that followed, internal documents that were thrown in the trash and recovered by Derrick Roach reveal that ACORN was well aware that personal information for individuals who have applied for services and individuals on so-called “yes lists” needed to be secured under lock and key.

Ironically, the only part of this tumultuous episode that may in fact be a joke is that California Attorney General Jerry Brown is running for governor, again. At age 71, California’s top cop and erstwhile Gov. Moonbeam might benefit from a refresher course in current law. Attorney General Brown cited a case from the 1960’s where items placed in the garbage were considered private; however, in 1988 the United States Supreme Court ruled in a case, California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), that there was no expectation of privacy when items are thrown in the garbage since it is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. As for the local National City ordinance prohibiting scavenging through garbage that the ACORN office and its supporters cite, that law was enacted in 1984 and was nullified by the United States Supreme Court ruling just four years later.

At the post I snarked, "Yeah, gotta cut that Secret Service detail some slack. The couple just belonged there! Man, if they could just cruise in so casually, it's not far-fetched to think that someone, somehow, could have stashed a cache of small-arms weapons."

But in fact, security expertsare suggesting that potentially catastrophic quantities of anthrax, or other WMD-type biotoxins, could have been been secretly introduced at the gala:

White House officials maintained that even though the pair got into the state dinner without an invitation, they did have to go through all the metal detectors that everyone passes through when entering the White House.

Other security experts described the episode as very serious.

“It’s crazy to say that, because there’s a reason they do background checks and there’s a reason they make sure to only let in people who have been pre-approved,” said Ronald Kessler, author of “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect” (Crown).

Indeed, he said, an intruder could have sneaked something dangerous into the crowd.

“A serial killer or terrorist or agent of Iran or North Korea could come in and release anthrax, for instance, and that’s not going to show up in a metal detectors,” Mr. Kessler said. He added that the Secret Service, in particular, should have been extra vigilant because threats against the president have increased by 400 percent since George W. Bush was in power.

In addition, and ominously, it turns out that Tareq Salahi, the polo-playing intruder, is a Palestinian nationalist with ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) , a pro-Palestine lobby demanding the "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The "right of return" has long been considered the backdoor to Israel's destruction. But not only that: ATFP President Ziad Asali is an America-basher who blamed 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Asali was a lead U.S. official to PLO terrorist Yassir Arafat's funeral in 2004. And in a position paper in 2007, the ATFP called for a power-sharing agreement at the Palestinian Authority, which would have included the State Department's designated-terrorist group, Hamas.ADDED: ATFP has removed Tareq Salahi from its website's board of directors page.

Philippine Official Says Victims of Massacre Were Sexually Mutilated

DAVAO CITY, Philippines — Most or all of the 22 women among the 57 people massacred Monday in the southern Philippines were sexually mutilated, the authorities said Friday, adding grim new details to the catalog of horrors that has already emerged.

“Even the private parts of the women were shot at,” the justice secretary, Agnes Devanadera, said on national television. “It was horrible. It was not done to just one. It was done practically to all the women.”

While work continued to identify all the dead, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said it appeared that 30 journalists and support staff had been killed. About a dozen of the victims were the relatives, lawyers and supporters of Esmael Mangudadatu, a local politician whose determination to challenge the entrenched Ampatuan clan in an upcoming gubernatorial election touched off the violence.

As is the case with most articles which have come out since this massacre, it is not mentioned that the perpetrators were Muslim.

Climategate: We Have A Serious Problem On Our Hands

This video is from 30 September 2009. Well before the official start of Climate Gate (the the afternoon and evening of 19 Sept USA time - about 0000 GMT 20 Nov). And he says the CRU is probably cooking the books.

Gallup: Americans want KSM tried in a military tribunal

Does the Obama administration ever get tired of getting things wrong? As their public support drains from the health-care overhaul they’ve pushed for the last several months, they have managed to find another way to marginalize themselves with the American public. By overwhelming numbers in the latest Gallup survey, Americans disapprove of the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a federal court — and can barely get a majority of Democrats to support it:

By 59% to 36%, more Americans believe accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, rather than in a civilian criminal court. Most Republicans and independents favor holding the trial in a military court, while the slight majority of Democrats disagree.

These findings come from a Nov. 20-22 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted a week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Mohammed’s case would move from a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, where the admitted terrorist was originally charged, to a federal court in New York City.

As with most Gallup surveys, this poll was taken among adults, not registered or likely voters. That type of sample usually produces numbers that are more sympathetic to liberal policy positions but are less predictive in election forecasting. This suggests that the decision may be even less popular in the more predictive sampling of registered or likely voters.

The partisan breakdown is significant, too. Republicans oppose the decision 74/22, as might be expected. Independents, though, also oppose it by almost 2-1, 63/32. Democrats support it — but only by eight points, 51/43. Support for a federal court trial is a fringe position among everyone but Democrats.

IAEA MENSA ALERT ! Iran investigation at 'dead end'.....DUH

The International Atomic Energy Agency probe of Iran's nuclear program is at a dead end because Tehran is not cooperating, the chief of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Thursday in an unusually blunt expression of frustration four days before he leaves office.

Mohamed ElBaradei also warned that international confidence in Iran's assertions of purely peaceful intent shrank after its belated revelation of a previously secret nuclear facility. And he criticized Tehran for not accepting an internationally endorsed plan meant to delay its achieving the ability to make nuclear weapons.

I really just cannot understand why Iran is not cooperating. Maybe we should ask our president if he has any ideas

Lebanese Government Gives Hezbollah a Go-Ahead to Use Arms Against Israel

(AFP) Lebanon's new cabinet has agreed on a policy statement that acknowledges Hezbollah's right to use its weapons against Israel, despite disagreement by some members of the ruling majority.

Information Minister Tarek Mitri said late Wednesday after a cabinet committee set up to draft the statement met for the ninth time that an agreement had been reached.

He said the new statement will retain the same clause approved by the previous cabinet as concerns the arsenal of Hezbollah, which fought a devastating war with Israel in 2006 and is considered a terrorist organisation by Washington.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Wall Street Journal: "The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start"

The climatologists at the center of last week's leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of the some of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science, which is as certain as ever.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.

We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. His May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" does not "read well," it's true. (Mr. Mann has said he didn't delete any such emails.)

But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.

This past September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who fact-checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds—including some in Mr. Mann's work—on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more-famous papers.

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted to several colleagues in an email from March 2003, when the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

The scare quotes around "peer-reviewed literature," by the way, are Mr. Mann's. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, re-define what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. It's easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science.

The response to this among the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science we've got. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature.

Even so, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim. If there's an innocent explanation for that, we'd love to hear it.

Chronology: FOIA Requests and the ClimateGate Emails

Worth reading. This guy filed his own FOIA requests, and each was denied for spurious reasons.

When this guy showed himself to be determined, and exposed their reasons for rejection to be made-up nonsense, Phil Jones issued this now-notorious email:

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

…

CheersPhil

And he writes stuff like this:

Mike, Ray, Caspar,

A couple of things – don’t pass on either.…2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person [DAVID HOLLAND – Willis] who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.

Earlier Jones had written this:

Mike, … Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two [climate skeptics] MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

….

Phil

That's how "science" advances, you know -- destroying information and records rather than sharing it with the world.

Even earlier than that, Jones had shown his "scientific" credentials, with this infamous email:

Subject: Re: WMO non respondo … Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. … Cheers Phil

Willis Eisenbach, the guy making all this trouble with his nitpicky demands to see data and methodology (as he is legally entitled to, as regards any taxpayer-funded enterprise), explains what is so egregiously wrong with this sort of thinking:

People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists attack the work by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.

This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.

Indeed. But the media is blowing this off as if it's no big deal that "scientists" not only refuse to show their work, but in fact conspire illegally to frustrate legal and valid FOIA requests.

Thanks to JackStraw.

In Case You Missed It... Yesterday I linked CBSNews recap of the scandal. I failed to highlight something I thought was important: An intriguing theory about how the leak happened.

The two main theories are 1 hacker and 2 insider-whistleblower. The new theory is a variation on insider-whistleblower. Given that the file seems to contain a LOT of data, and doesn't have any personal emails in it, that suggests someone took a lot of time to include only pertinent emails.

The theory, then, is this: The file was in fact prepared in response to FOIA requests/demands. In a provisional way -- okay, guys, let's prepare a response to the requests, in case we actually have to disclose this stuff.

So a team went through and attempted to comply.

Now, what happens, per this theory, is this: The decision is made to not release the file, to continue the cover-up and illegal withholding of information.

At this point someone decides "The hell with that" -- perhaps this person was on the team assembling the file -- and releases it himself.

Makes a great deal of sense, I think. Particularly when you consider that crackers (hackers -- hackers like being called "crackers") generally boast of their work, and take credit (under their cracker-handle), and that wasn't done here.

I am a Gold-Star Father, meaning my son Sergeant Eddie Jeffers was killed in Iraq. I am opposed to terrorists being tried in civilian courts. Did I mention that I am a 22 year Army veteran? Is it okay with you if invoke my free speech rights?

How about Debra Burlingame? Her brother, Charles "Chic" Burlingame III, was piloting the plane that terrorists slammed into the Pentagon. Ms. Burlingame is opposed to terrorists being tried in civilian courts. Does she need to go somewhere else?

Time and space does not allow listing the names of family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 and those who subsequently joined the military to find this terrorist scourge, some giving "the last full measure." Do all of these patriotic Americans need to go somewhere else?

Perhaps it is Senator Conrad who needs to go somewhere else? I'm not asking North Dakotans to send Senator Conrad out of the country, just back to Bismarck.

We're the Obama Admin:WE CONTROL CONGRESS, WE CAN REPEAL THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks -- for His kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of His Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One [capital O] now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New Yorkthe third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789George Washington

Someone's Going to Have a Really Bad Day For This

Couple slips though security to crash state dinnerBy Associated PressThursday, November 26, 2009

WASHINGTON — Michaele and Tareq Salahi didn’t look out of place at Tuesday’s White House state dinner. They were all smiles as they rubbed shoulders with Vice President Joe Biden, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty and CBS News anchor Katie Couric.

No one suspected the Salahis were a couple of brazen party crashers — and wannabe reality TV stars.

The Secret Service is looking into its security procedures after determining that the Virginia couple managed to slip into Tuesday night’s event even though they were not on the guest list, agency spokesman Ed Donovan said.

President Barack Obama was never in any danger because the Salahis went through the same security screening for weapons as the 300-plus people actually invited to the dinner honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Donovan said.

Donovan confirmed the identities of the couple. The Washington Post, which first reported on their evening out, said the Salahis were well-known in the Virginia horse-country set and were being considered for the Bravo reality TV show "Real Housewives of D.C."

In an interview with CBS’ "Early Show" in September, Michaele Salahi said, "President Obama has made it very accessible for anyone to visit the White House, so that’s like a big thing right now." The CBS interview was part of a segment on potential candidates for "Real Housewives of D.C." but never was aired.

The Secret Service learned about the security breach Wednesday after a media inquiry prompted by the Salahis’ online boasts about having attended the private event, Donovan said.

One of the many photos from the dinner posted on Michaele Salahi’s Facebook page shows the couple with a smiling Biden. In other photos, they appear alone or together with Emanuel, Fenty, Couric, Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., and three Marines in their dress blues.

Donovan would not comment on whether the couple had been contacted by the Secret Service, how long they were on the White House grounds or other details of the investigation.

The Post said uninvited guests who got in could face a potential trespassing charge unless someone from inside the White House staff slipped them in.

Donovan would not comment on possible legal violations.

The agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility was reviewing what occurred. An initial finding indicated that a checkpoint did not follow proper procedures to ensure the two were on the guest list, Donovan said.

"It’s important to note that they went through all the security screenings — the magnetometer screening — just like all the other guests did," Donovan said. And, he added, Obama and others under Secret Service protection had their usual security details with them.

The Parallel Government
Of The Entire World

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.

The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

Infidel Babe Of The Week
Moran Atias - TYRANT

IBA Quote of the Week.

Trump took the elements of an independent candidacy — the lack of clear ideology, the name recognition of a national celebrity and the personal fortune needed to fund a presidential campaign — and then did what no one seemed to have thought of before. He staged a hostile takeover of an existing major party. He had the best of both worlds, an outsider candidacy with crosscutting ideological appeal and the platform of a major party to wage the general election. By the time he had finished, he had taken down two political dynasties: the Bush dynasty in the primaries and the Clinton dynasty in the general election.

The Infidel Bloggers Alliance Radio Show

Gathering Storm Report Radio Show

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

****************

"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."~~~~~Bono~~~~~